I am learning php oop. But I can not understand in which situations use public, private and protected. I know that public is accessable inside the class and outside the class, protected inside the class and inside classes which inherites it, private is accessable only inside the class. But how to know that the property or method must be protected or private ? I know that if write class for connecting database they must be protected or private. But, an example: I am writing registrating class(is the code below true ?):
private $email;
private $username;
private $password;
private $securitycode;
private function register {
//here registrations codes, may be I must use public function ?
}
Another example: I have news section in the website and want to get news details (id, title, text, author) and write News class (is given code below true ?):
private $id;
private $title;
private $text;
private $author;
public function get_one_news($this->id) {
//here the code for getting the news, may be I must use protected function ?
}
Another example: I want to get number of users or news: Which I have to use : public, protected or private function ?
Another example: Every user(registered or unregistered) can add comment(id, comment): Can I use public $id; public $comment ? or I have to use protected or private ?
Please, I need your advices. Which(public, protected, private properties and functions) to use if I want to add/get news, to register/login user, to add/edit/get data from database tables, to make fileuploading and etc. ?
I could not find answers to my question.
You can think about it like this. The non-private parts of your class are its interface to the outside world. You can change the private inner workings as much as you want, without thinking about breaking other code in your system. However as soon as you start changing the non private parts you have to take into consideration all the users of your code depending on your current public interface. So I think as a general rule of thumb you should try to make your code as private as possible.By that you can greatly increase the encapsulation of your codebase, allowing you to change the internal implementation details without affecting the code using your class.
So in a first step think about what functionality your new class should offer its users. This should then become its public interface. Then think about whether or not your class should be inherited from and what parts should be allowed to be changed in its subclasses. Everything else should be private as it is the classes internal implementation.
Related
I need help converting some of this code. Mainly:
private static void SetProvider(ServiceCollection collection)
=> _service = collection.BuildServiceProvider();
and the line below it. This is being used for a discord bot using Discord.Net with the music library Victoria. Can someone also tell me what this actually is? Just a side question. this uses static classes and there's not anything called static on VB.Net so what would be the best call here? I've seen some other posts from here debating whether to use NonInheritable Class or a Module. What are the differences and when it is better to use either one?
It depends on what you want exactly. VB.NET does not provide static classes. Instead, it offers modules, but those are not completely equal to static classes.
The module version would be:
Public Module ServiceManager
Private _service As IServiceProvider
Public Sub SetProvider(collection As ServiceCollection)
_service = collection.BuildServiceProvider()
End Sub
Public Function GetService(Of T As New)() As T
Return _service.GetRequiredService(Of T)()
End Function
End Module
The class version would be:
Public NotInheritable Class ServiceManager
Private Sub New()
End Sub
Private Shared _service As IServiceProvider
Public Shared Sub SetProvider(collection As ServiceCollection)
_service = collection.BuildServiceProvider()
End Sub
Public Shared Function GetService(Of T As New)() As T
Return _service.GetRequiredService(Of T)()
End Function
End Class
When using the class implementation, you have to be careful to mark all members as Shared. Additionally, you can consider the following:
Declare the class as NotInheritable, since neither VB.NET modules nor C# static classes can be inherited from. (The corresponding C# keyword is sealed, by the way, but it will never be used in this context, since C# does support static classes.)
Create one private (default) constructor for the class. That will make sure that you cannot instantiate the class. VB.NET modules nor C# static classes cannot be instantiated either.
Using VB.NET modules is somewhat more straightforward, but keep in mind that VB.NET modules have a little quirk. When accessing a member of a module, you are typically not required to prefix it with the module name. Suppose you have some kind of service class called MyService and you have implemented your ServiceManager as a module. Then you do not need to call it like:
Dim svc As MyService = ServiceManager.GetService(Of MyService)()
Instead, you could just call it like:
Dim svc As MyService = GetService(Of MyService)()`.
When using the former method, Visual Studio actually suggests to simplify the name and change it to the latter method. But when you afterwards add another imported namespace that also happens to contain a module that has a GetService(Of T)() method, you will get an error indicating that GetService is ambiguous, in which case you would be forced to prefix it with the module name (like in the former method).
I personally find this checking behavior in Visual Studio regarding VB.NET module member usage to be rather annoying and confusing. I prefer prefixing calls with the module name (for the sake of writing self-documenting code and avoiding ambiguity as mentioned), but I do not want to disable the "simplify name" hint/suggestion in Visual Studio. So I personally prefer a class implementation instead of a module implementation when implementing something in VB.NET that mimics a C# static class.
Or even better: I would avoid a static class design and switch to a "regular" class design when possible. Using class instances has several advantages, like using composition (which is also an important technique used in many popular behavioral design patterns), simplified mocking/unittesting, and less side effects in general.
The equivalent VB.NET is:
Private Shared Sub SetProvider(collection As ServiceCollection)
_service = collection.BuildServiceProvider()
End Sub
C# expression bodies are just a single expression body method, MS Docs e.g. the following are equivalent:
void Greet()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello World");
}
// Same as above
void Greet() => Console.WriteLine("Hello World");
I come from the VBA world where options to breakdown your code into classes, namespaces, and modules is limited. Now I just landed in a world where the options are many, and I feel lost.
I would like to know what is the purpose of declaring a Class within another Class? (see example below)
Class FirstClass
Public OnePropertyInside As String
Class SecondClass
Public AnotherProperty As String
End Class
End Class
If I create a new instance of FirstClass (say myFirstClass), SecondClass is not instantiated.
Even more bizzare (to me at least), is that intelissense offers me myFirstClass.SecondClass. Obviously, because the class is not instantiated, I cannot access any of its members.
So, is that usefull only if the SecondClass contains shared members?
To try answering that question I added a shared member within SecondClass:
Class FirstClass
Public OnePropertyInside As String
Class SecondClass
Public AnotherProperty As String
Public Shared SharedProperty As String
End Class
End Class
I ran a few tests which brought secondary questions (see comments in code)
Sub Main()
Dim myFirstClass As New FirstClass
'Works as expected
Console.WriteLine(myFirstClass.OneProperty)
'What is the difference between the two lines below?
Console.WriteLine(myFirstClass.SecondClass.SharedProperty)
Console.WriteLine(FirstClass.SecondClass.SharedProperty)
'This line cannot be compiled, this demonstrates SecondClass is not instantiated when FirstClass is.
Console.WriteLine(myFirstClass.SecondClass.AnotherProperty)
Dim mySecondClass As New FirstClass.SecondClass
'Works as expected, but I feel this hierarchy should better be dealt with through a namespace statement?
Console.WriteLine(mySecondClass.AnotherProperty)
End Sub
You can think of it as if the inner most class is a helper class of sorts. It may not even need to be used at all. Nesting the inner class(or simply nested class) inside the outer class gives you access to all of the members of the outer one. You can even access the private members inside that initial outer class.
Edit: For clarification, I mean to say that the the inner can access the private members of the outer, not the other way around.
You usually do this because you want to restrict the scope of the nested class.
So, if you only need to use this class from within the "parent" class (in terms of scope), then its usually a good idea to define it as a nested class.
If you might might need to use the class outside of its assembly, then it is better to define it as a completely separate class (in its own file), and then define your relationship accordingly. You will need to instantiate one within the other (this is the same whether its seperate or nested - so its location is largely irrelevant for that point).
When you do that, and the inner class is accessible to other classes (it's accessibility is Public or Friend), the outer class basically just works like a namespace. So for instance, using your example, you could create a new object of the nested class without ever creating one of the outer class:
Dim x As New FirstClass.SecondClass()
The most obvious benefit is the structural organization of the code, much like namespaces and code files. So, for instance, it's not uncommon to use nested classes for constants, to help better organize them:
Public Class Urls
Public Class Processing
Public Const Submit As String = "..."
Public Const Cancel As String = "..."
End Class
Public Class Reporting
Public Const Daily As String = "..."
Public Const Weekly As String = "..."
End Class
End Class
' ...
Dim url As String = Urls.Reporting.Daily
However, outside of the narrow set of situations where things like that are useful, most people would prefer to not nest public classes at all.
However, as others have mentioned, the one place where you really will see nested classes used fairly regularly is for Private ones. If you need some small helper class which will have no use to code outside of your class, there's no reason to expose it. Even if you set it's accessibility to Friend, it will still be visible to all the other classes in the same project. Therefore, if you really want to hide it from everything else, you'll want to make it a nested private class. For instance:
Public Class MyClass
Public Function GetTheIdOfSomething() As Integer
Dim d As Details = GetDetailsAboutSomething()
If d.Value Is Nothing Then
Return d.Id
Else
Throw New Exception()
End If
End Sub
Private Function GetDetailsAboutSomething() As Details
' ... return a Details object
End Function
Private Class Details
Public Property Id As Integer
Public Property Value As String
End Class
End Class
Interface behaves differently in Vb.Net. Below is a sample code snippet where IStudent interface has a method SayHello which is implemented by a class Student. The Access modifier for SayHello should be Public by default. By changing Access modifier to Private is not breaking the existing code and still i can access this private method using below code
Dim stdnt As IStudent = New Student
stdnt.SayHello()
Access modifier determines the scope of the members in a class, more over private members are accessible only from the class which exists. But here the theory of Access Modifier, Encapsulation are broken.
Why .net has designed in this way?
Is the concept of Access modifier and encapsulation are really broken?
How .net framework internally handle this situation?
Thanks in advance
Module Module1
Sub Main()
Dim stdnt As IStudent = New Student
stdnt.Name = "vimal"
stdnt.SayHello()
End Sub
End Module
Public Interface IStudent
Property Name As String
Sub SayHello()
End Interface
Public Class Student
Implements IStudent
Private Property Name As String Implements IStudent.Name
Private Sub SayHello() Implements IStudent.SayHello
Console.WriteLine("Say Hello!")
End Sub
End Class
The original poster submitted this question to me via TheBugGuys#Coverity.com; my answer is here:
https://communities.coverity.com/blogs/development-testing-blog/2013/10/09/oct-9-posting-interface-behaves-differently-in-visual-basic
To briefly summarize:
Why was .NET designed in this way?
That question is impossibly vague.
Is encapsulation broken by explicit implementation in C# and VB?
No. The privacy of the method restricts the accessibility domain of the methods name, not who can call the method. If the author of the class chooses to make a private method callable by some mechanism other than looking it up by name, that is their choice. A third party cannot make the choice for them except via techniques such as private reflection, which do break encapsulation.
How is this feature implemented in .NET?
There is a special metadata table for explicit interface implementations. The CLR consults it first when attempting to figure out which class (or struct) method is associated with which interface method.
From MSDN:
You can use a private member to implement an interface member. When a private member implements a member of an interface, that member becomes available by way of the interface even though it is not available directly on object variables for the class.
In C#, this behaviour is achieved by implementing the interface explicitly, like this:
public interface IStudent {
string Name { get; set; }
void SayHello();
}
public class Student : IStudent {
string IStudent.Name { get; set; }
void IStudent.SayHello() {
Console.WriteLine("Say Hello!");
}
}
So, if you were to omit the IStudent. in front of the method names, it would break. I see that in the VB syntax the interface name is included. I don't know whether this has any implications altough. But interface members aren't private, since the interface isn't. They're kinda public...
There is no fundamental difference between C# and VB.NET, they just chose different ways to solve ambiguity. Best demonstrated with a C# snippet:
interface ICowboy {
void Draw();
}
interface IPainter {
void Draw();
}
class CowboyPainter : ICowboy, IPainter {
void ICowboy.Draw() { useGun(); }
void IPainter.Draw() { useBrush(); }
// etc...
}
VB.NET just chose consistent interface implementation syntax so the programmer doesn't have to weigh the differences between implicit and explicit implementation syntax. Simply always explicit in VB.NET.
Only the accessibility of the interface method matters. Always public.
When your variable stdnt is declared as IStudent, the interface methods and properties are then made Public, so the derived class' (Student) implementation is executed. If, on the other hand, if stdnt was declared as Student, the private members (Name and SayHello) would not be implemented, and an error would be thrown.
I'm guessing that the Interface members stubs (Name & SayHello) are by default Public, and the access modifier definitions of the derived class' implementation are ignored.
IMHO.
The exact equivalent in C# is the following - the method available to objects of the interface type and the private method available otherwise:
void IStudent.SayHello()
{
this.SayHello();
}
private void SayHello()
{
Console.WriteLine("Say Hello!");
}
This is the closest thing I could find to my problem on here
I'm working on a projects and I want to add a security model to it, so since I have experience first hand how bad jumping into coding and skipping the planning phase is I decided to do that first. So I created an ERD, cool do it all the time, then the UML Class diagram, haven't done one of these since college, ok a little bit of google, go it.
See ERD And UML Class Diagram Here
The image above is an exert of what I have so far, I know that I certainly need a User Class and a Permission Class but I'm not sure how to handle the relationship between the two. I know generally in an M-N relationship you model it with a property that is a collection of the related class but what about the properties of the related class? Below is my best guess, if anyone has corrections, comments, or links to material to read that would be awesome. My goal is the proper implementation of OOP thanks in advance.
class User{
private $id;
private $password;
private $active;
private $permissions;
/* skip getters and setters */
function getUserPermissions(){
return UserPermission[];
}
}
class UserPermission{
private $id;
private $deny;
private $grant;
private $active;
/* skip getters and setters */
function getPermissions(){
return Permission[];
}
}
class Permission{
private $id;
private $name;
private $description;
private $active;
/* skip getters and setters */
}
You could have these arrays that you return directly, as arrays or lists. But that is not so important.
What is more important, every UserPermission, that is a class association, should have an array of User's and an array of Permission's.
Also, every User should have his UserPermission and every Permission should have its UserPermission, too.
And User should have no array for UserPermission's. Their association is 1:n, with n on the side of User. That means: UserPermission has many User's, User has 1 UserPermission.
Interface behaves differently in Vb.Net. Below is a sample code snippet where IStudent interface has a method SayHello which is implemented by a class Student. The Access modifier for SayHello should be Public by default. By changing Access modifier to Private is not breaking the existing code and still i can access this private method using below code
Dim stdnt As IStudent = New Student
stdnt.SayHello()
Access modifier determines the scope of the members in a class, more over private members are accessible only from the class which exists. But here the theory of Access Modifier, Encapsulation are broken.
Why .net has designed in this way?
Is the concept of Access modifier and encapsulation are really broken?
How .net framework internally handle this situation?
Thanks in advance
Module Module1
Sub Main()
Dim stdnt As IStudent = New Student
stdnt.Name = "vimal"
stdnt.SayHello()
End Sub
End Module
Public Interface IStudent
Property Name As String
Sub SayHello()
End Interface
Public Class Student
Implements IStudent
Private Property Name As String Implements IStudent.Name
Private Sub SayHello() Implements IStudent.SayHello
Console.WriteLine("Say Hello!")
End Sub
End Class
The original poster submitted this question to me via TheBugGuys#Coverity.com; my answer is here:
https://communities.coverity.com/blogs/development-testing-blog/2013/10/09/oct-9-posting-interface-behaves-differently-in-visual-basic
To briefly summarize:
Why was .NET designed in this way?
That question is impossibly vague.
Is encapsulation broken by explicit implementation in C# and VB?
No. The privacy of the method restricts the accessibility domain of the methods name, not who can call the method. If the author of the class chooses to make a private method callable by some mechanism other than looking it up by name, that is their choice. A third party cannot make the choice for them except via techniques such as private reflection, which do break encapsulation.
How is this feature implemented in .NET?
There is a special metadata table for explicit interface implementations. The CLR consults it first when attempting to figure out which class (or struct) method is associated with which interface method.
From MSDN:
You can use a private member to implement an interface member. When a private member implements a member of an interface, that member becomes available by way of the interface even though it is not available directly on object variables for the class.
In C#, this behaviour is achieved by implementing the interface explicitly, like this:
public interface IStudent {
string Name { get; set; }
void SayHello();
}
public class Student : IStudent {
string IStudent.Name { get; set; }
void IStudent.SayHello() {
Console.WriteLine("Say Hello!");
}
}
So, if you were to omit the IStudent. in front of the method names, it would break. I see that in the VB syntax the interface name is included. I don't know whether this has any implications altough. But interface members aren't private, since the interface isn't. They're kinda public...
There is no fundamental difference between C# and VB.NET, they just chose different ways to solve ambiguity. Best demonstrated with a C# snippet:
interface ICowboy {
void Draw();
}
interface IPainter {
void Draw();
}
class CowboyPainter : ICowboy, IPainter {
void ICowboy.Draw() { useGun(); }
void IPainter.Draw() { useBrush(); }
// etc...
}
VB.NET just chose consistent interface implementation syntax so the programmer doesn't have to weigh the differences between implicit and explicit implementation syntax. Simply always explicit in VB.NET.
Only the accessibility of the interface method matters. Always public.
When your variable stdnt is declared as IStudent, the interface methods and properties are then made Public, so the derived class' (Student) implementation is executed. If, on the other hand, if stdnt was declared as Student, the private members (Name and SayHello) would not be implemented, and an error would be thrown.
I'm guessing that the Interface members stubs (Name & SayHello) are by default Public, and the access modifier definitions of the derived class' implementation are ignored.
IMHO.
The exact equivalent in C# is the following - the method available to objects of the interface type and the private method available otherwise:
void IStudent.SayHello()
{
this.SayHello();
}
private void SayHello()
{
Console.WriteLine("Say Hello!");
}